#erick erickson

Helen Lewis at The Atlantic:

Douglas Wilson has a modest proposal to improve American life: He wants to repeal the Nineteenth Amendment, which gave women the vote. In his ideal system, “we would do it in our politics the same way we do it in our church structure,” he told me recently. “And that is, we vote by household.” Wilson is a co-founder of the Communion of Reformed Evangelical Churches, based in Moscow, Idaho. Over the past five decades, he has built a small empire there, dedicated to disseminating his theocratic vision for the United States: a publishing house, a school, a liberal-arts college, and a video-streaming service. His denomination, which has about 170 affiliated churches, counts Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth as a member, and Wilson was invited to lead a prayer service at the Pentagon in February. So when the pastor casually suggests disenfranchising half of America, people listen.

[...] Wilson believes that women should “not ordinarily” hold political office, and should never serve in combat roles in the military. Husbands should have dominion over misbehaving wives’ weight, spending habits, and choice of television programs. His uncompromising vision for America was once considered marginal, the conservative writer Karen Swallow Prior told me. Since his elevation by Hegseth, however, “no one can credibly say that Doug Wilson is fringe anymore.” Wilson is a prominent voice in what is sometimes called “masculinism”: a movement to fight back against the advances of feminism and reassert the primacy of men. His version is religious, influenced by the notion of male “headship” of the family and Saint Paul’s belief that godly women should “be quiet.” There are also plenty of secular masculinists, as well as nominally Muslim ones, such as the streamer Sneako, the self-proclaimed pimp Andrew Tate, and the podcaster Myron Gaines. Woman-bashing plays well on social media and sells lots of ads for crypto, sports betting, and supplements. You can make good money telling men that they’re the truly oppressed sex.

But this isn’t just a movement of grifters exploiting a quirk of the algorithm. In the past decade, one of the New Right’s major challenges has been to retrofit a consistent ideology onto the electoral power of Donald Trump. Masculinism has been a great gift, because factions with different views on, say, protectionism or Israel or Big Tech can all agree on the overreach of feminism and the need for a return to traditional gender roles. Far from being a fringe belief system, masculinism has become the single most important force uniting the American right, bringing together an unlikely constellation of pastors, posters, senators, preachers, influencers, podcasters, and fanboys.

The MAGA movement is often framed as a reaction to the first Black president, and to a growing Latino population. But the multiracial appeal of the manosphere and Trump’s 2024 inroads with young minority men point in a different direction. “People ask me what the New Right is furious about,” the author Laura Field, whose book, Furious Minds, describes the intellectual underpinnings of Trumpism, told me. “And I think a good shorthand for that is they’re furious about their own loss of status in society over the last few years and the elites who made that happen, and I think that the pithiest short version of that is that it’s the women. It’s the women who took their status.”

Wilson’s approach to public life clearly has an element of what professional wrestlers call kayfabe—the winking, performative trollishness that now characterizes the online right. He wants feminists like me to get angry with his most outlandish proposals, making ourselves look like scolds or Chicken Littles in the process. But Wilson and a growing number of powerful allies are sincere in these beliefs, and would want to enact them if given the chance. One of masculinism’s central claims is that no one is talking about men. So true! Men’s issues are not being discussed in Senator Josh Hawley’s 2023 book, Manhood: The Masculine Virtues America Needs. They aren’t being discussed in Tucker Carlson’s documentary The End of Men. They aren’t being discussed in the panoply of Christian books available on Amazon with titles such as Man for the Job, Masculine Christianity, and It’s Good to Be a Man, or in their secular counterparts, such as Why Women Deserve Less. They aren’t being talked about on social-media feeds (which can be highly segregated by sex) or on some of America’s most popular independent podcasts, such as Modern Wisdom, Huberman Lab, and The Diary of a CEO.

For decades, each feminist advance in American public life has prompted an equally strong backlash. The first wave of women’s-rights activists won suffrage for women, against ferocious and sometimes violent opposition. After the second wave secured Title IX and other legal victories against sex discrimination, Phyllis Schlafly successfully fought back against the full ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment. By the identity-obsessed 2010s, the full weight of corporate America had swung behind glib slogans such as “The future is female.” This commercial blitzkrieg inevitably convinced some people that women’s advancement had come at men’s expense. A refrain I kept hearing over the past few years was that boys were being made to feel ashamed of themselves, as if they were stained by some kind of original sin. These years have seen a counterreaction, with the total abandonment of the #MeToo movement, conservative gloating over the fall of Roe v. Wade, and the return of straightforwardly sexist put-downs—“Quiet, piggy”—to public life.

Like most popular movements, masculinism has many entry points, and both defensible and alarming forms. At one end of the spectrum are legitimate concerns about male loneliness, the declining share of men in higher education, stagnant wages for non-college-educated men, and the deadening effects of day-trading, gaming, and porn. At the other end of masculinism are a misogynist vocabulary about AWFULs and the longhouse (terms that we’ll come back to) and a political agenda close to that in The Handmaid’s Tale, whereby women are denied the right to work, vote, and control their own bodies.

On the internet, masculinism is presented as a rebellion—a transgressive middle finger to the liberal establishment, expressed in all the words a corporate HR department would order you not to say. In the past few years, leaked group chats have shown Young Republicans and college conservatives using sexism, infused with racism, as a bonding mechanism. “If your pilot is a she and she looks ten shades darker than someone from Sicily, just end it there. Scream the no no word,” read a message in a Telegram thread used by the leaders of Young Republican chapters in New York, Kansas, Arizona, and Vermont. (Several members of the chat were women.) Richard Hanania, who describes himself as a former white nationalist, calls this kind of in-group signaling “the Based Ritual,” a way for younger MAGA enthusiasts to prove their bona fides to one another.

Among Gen Zers, Douglas Wilson’s intellectual heir is Nick Fuentes, who leads a loose collection of trolls known as Groypers. A self-professed Christian nationalist, anti-Semite, and virgin, Fuentes has built a fan base in part by deploying vividly misogynistic language. “Our No. 1 political enemy is women, because women constrain everything, every conversation, every man—everything,” Fuentes said on a livestream earlier this year. He added: “Just like Hitler imprisoned Gypsies, Jews, Communists—all of his political rivals—we have to do the same thing with women.” He suggested that they be sent to “breeding gulags. The good ones will be liberated. The bad ones will toil in the mines forever.”

Fuentes’s rhetoric shows how this gendered view of the world can easily be interlaced with other prejudices. Gay men? Effeminate, uninterested in sports, therefore unmanly. Jews? Clever rather than athletic; also unmanly. University lecturers? Pencil-necked postmodernists; also unmanly. Trans people? Inevitably degenerate. Muslims? An invasion force of rapists. Black men? Thugs from whom white women should be protected (if only they would submit to patriarchy). Almost every facet of contemporary online rightism can be refracted through the prism of gender. Multiple people affiliated with the Heritage Foundation, perhaps the most influential MAGA policy organization, cut ties with the group after its president refused to condemn Fuentes’s anti-Semitism last year. But his view that women belong in forced-breeding camps has produced no such fuss.

[...] How popular are masculinist ideas? Last year, research by King’s College London and Ipsos found that Gen Z men in 30 nations were far more likely than male Baby Boomers to say that the fight for women’s equality had gone so far that men were now disadvantaged. They were also more than twice as likely to say that a father who stayed home with his children was “less of a man.” Meanwhile, 83 percent of Republican men younger than 50 think society is too feminized, according to a survey by the conservative Manhattan Institute. Intriguingly, this survey did not replicate the usual trope of working-class men revolting against snooty female elites: It found that “college-educated Republicans are more likely than their non-college counterparts to endorse the view that society has become too feminine.” The most recent presidential election, pitting Trump against Kamala Harris, was a gift to masculinists. After all, the movement’s villains include female bosses, feminists, and women who don’t bear children—and Harris was the embodiment of all three. The male podcasters who got behind Trump in 2024 now host outright misogynists: Consider the career of the Christian debater Andrew Wilson, who in January appeared on arguably the most popular podcast in America, The Joe Rogan Experience—the manosphere-influencer equivalent of singing the national anthem at the Super Bowl.

[...]

In fact, the challenge of falling birth rates is so well-known that many countries have implemented pronatalist policies in response: Singapore offers $11,000 “baby bonuses,” while Hungary exempts mothers of three or more children from income taxes. So far, though, none of the carrots has worked. The actually unspeakable bit is whether women’s access to education and the job market should be restricted, in the name of producing more babies and saving civilization. I wish people like Rachel Wilson would just come out and say that they favor this, so we can have a proper argument about it. Instead they deploy a classic masculinist tactic: Tiptoe up to the edge of a policy that would poll as well as mandatory Ebola, then pirouette away at the last minute. Joel Webbon, a hard-right pastor based in Austin who has built a large social-media following by opposing feminism and the “LGBT Mafia,” is one of those prepared to say openly that he would like to restrict women’s participation in public life. “I know a lot of people, and I’m obviously not going to name them, but a lot of people and names that you would recognize are much further to the right than they are willing to publicly say,” he told me. However, he did not mind their bait-and-switch style, because the left has used it for decades. A small group of people argued that “love is love” to pass gay marriage, “and then, you know, it’s like: Oh, actually, Drag Queen Story Hour.” Masculinists were only turning lefties’ own strategy against them.

[...]

The Phyllis Schlafly of today is the writer Helen Andrews, with whom I am sometimes confused by liberals with Helen blindness. In a viral 2025 essay for Compact magazine called “The Great Feminization,” Andrews asked whether greater female participation in the workforce was “a threat to civilization.” (Honestly, women can be so overwrought.) She was building on an influential thesis on the right known as “the longhouse,” which argues that modern, feminized society resembles the communal living halls of the past, which were dominated by “den mothers” who ruled by passive aggression, offense-taking, and ostracizing their enemies—all classically feminine modes of behavior. The most famous outlining of the longhouse thesis came from a writer calling himself L0m3z in the religious magazine First Things. He declined to cite any specific historical examples and added that one could not really define the longhouse, anyway, because “its definition must remain elastic, lest it lose its power to lampoon the vast constellation of social forces it reviles.” How convenient! Instead, the longhouse was “a metonym for the disequilibrium afflicting the contemporary social imaginary.” Let me shock you: L0m3z was eventually outed as a humanities academic.

Andrews took this thesis further, arguing that “everything you think of as ‘wokeness’ is simply an epiphenomenon of demographic feminization.” To translate that into English, the claim is that women don’t settle arguments like characters in a Guy Ritchie film, with fisticuffs outside the smoking shed and no hard feelings two hours later. Instead, Andrews writes, they “covertly undermine or ostracize their enemies.” Therefore, “all cancellations are feminine.” Again, a quick glance at the history books presents a few challenges: The backstabbing in the Roman Senate was both literal and figurative, and the Vatican has always been a nest of scheming cardinals. And who pressured ABC to take Jimmy Kimmel off the air after Charlie Kirk’s assassination? Brendan Carr, who is Trump’s Federal Communications Commission chair—and the possessor of a Y chromosome.

[...]

On the right, creeping feminization has become an all-purpose explanation for many recent events: Women pity the underdog, pander to self-proclaimed victims, and care about hurt feelings more than the truth—all of which are exploited by undocumented immigrants and violent criminals. In this analysis, Renee Good—the woman shot by an immigration-enforcement officer in Minneapolis—was killed because she’d adopted left-wing values. “An AWFUL (Affluent White Female Urban Liberal) is dead after running her car into an ICE agent who opened fire on her,” the right-wing pundit Erick Erickson posted immediately after her death. Women are childlike, naive, immature; they simply do not understand the real world.

Many MAGA figures have identified the surfeit of feminine empathy as a political issue. The first episode of Douglas Wilson’s Man Rampant podcast was called “The Sin of Empathy.” The Canadian marketing professor Gad Saad issues regular condemnations of “suicidal empathy” between posts complaining that women “no longer wear any real clothes and instead are always in athleisure.”

This disdain for empathy often leads to the conclusion that women’s political participation is a problem, because the little ladies will insist on voting for the wrong candidates and policies. “The 1920s were the last decade in American history during which one could be genuinely optimistic about politics,” Peter Thiel, an early advocate for Trump in Silicon Valley, wrote in a 2009 essay for a Cato Institute journal. “Since 1920, the vast increase in welfare beneficiaries and the extension of the franchise to women—two constituencies that are notoriously tough for libertarians—have rendered the notion of ‘capitalist democracy’ into an oxymoron.” In this view, the gender split in American politics—55 percent of men but only 46 percent of women voted for Trump in 2024—is not merely a reflection of differing priorities but a problem to be solved.

At the same time that people like Wilson are saying out loud that they want to repeal the Nineteenth Amendment, the suggestion that anyone seriously wants to end female suffrage is often dismissed by mainstream conservatives as lib hysteria. After all, changing the Constitution would require the assent of three-quarters of the 50 states. “I’ll be concerned about the 19th thing the day a single state—just one out of 38—passes a repeal,” Inez Stepman, a former fellow at the Claremont Institute, posted in March. Liberals were “humorlessly chasing fumes of jokes and bar chatter, and dishonestly using it to silence real policy and cultural debate.” Personally, I would feel better about this line of argument had I not sat opposite the conservative intellectual Jordan Peterson in 2018 while he sneered at my suggestion that Trump-appointed justices would overturn Roe v. Wade. Or if the Trump administration had not taken the issue of birthright citizenship all the way to the Supreme Court. Or if Pete Hegseth had not already blocked the promotion of female (and Black) military officers, and frequently expressed his opposition to women serving in combat.

Masculinism is now approaching its imperial-overreach phase, like the Roman empire that many of its leaders so admire. For some of its most ardent adherents, if someone on the left is doing anything, regardless of their sex, it’s feminized and bad. Meanwhile, when Trump sends out a bitchy Truth Social post about a petty grievance, that is a display of manly vigor. Tucker Carlson’s perfectly buoyant coiffure? Rugged—butch, even. Ben Shapiro’s heartwarming enjoyment of musical theater? In the best tradition of the Vikings or Spartans, probably. This reductive view of the world—women things bad, men things good—is the mirror image of the worst excesses of 2010s Tumblr feminism, when introverted teenage girls posted hashtags like #KillAllMen and drank from mugs that read MALE TEARS.

In March, the anti-DEI activist Christopher Rufo had to fend off a horde of anonymous right-wing posters claiming, apparently seriously, that white men “are very easily the most oppressed group in history.” When he described this view as “brain damaged” and invoked a little-known American phenomenon called slavery, he was besieged with complaints.

For me, this episode gets to the core of MAGA masculinism. Which of its faces is the real one—the conservative think-tankers seeking to undo antidiscrimination laws, or the soap opera of influencers railing against “small-breasted biddies” and AWFULs, wallowing in self-pity, and labeling everything they dislike as feminine?

But of course, the sober thinkers and the shock troops feed off each other. Sometimes, as with Wilson, they coexist in a single person. This is a movement with real policy goals: the rollback of no-fault divorce. Tax breaks to reward male breadwinners and female homemakers. An end to anything with a whiff of DEI, even leadership programs for women in the military, like one cut by Hegseth. A return to the workplace culture of the 1970s, where sexual harassment was normalized. An open preference for male employees in hiring, promotion, and pay awards—in other words, affirmative action for men. Yet masculinism also functions as a perpetual-motion machine of grievance, an inarticulate howl of anguish at the status quo—whatever that currently is. Masculinism is both serious and silly, sometimes camp and sometimes chilling, an attention-grabbing performance and a genuine proposition. No wonder it has become the cornerstone of Trumpism.

Conservative radio star Erick Erickson revealed that his cancer-stricken wife can’t get the coronavirus vaccine because of action being taken by Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. on Thursday night.

After Trump tweeted conspiracy theories about the death toll in Puerto Rico, conservative media figures are coming up with all kinds of vile excuses for his indefensible comments. 

Erick Erickson‏Verified account @EWErickson

I am attempting to read 6 non-fiction books this month, 2 down 4 to go.

Before You Wake by Erick Erickson

Shadow Warriors of World War II by Gordon Thomas and Greg Lewis

Never Quite by Jimmy Settle - currently reading (it has a bookmark in it)

The Vanishing American Adult by Ben Sasse (35 pages in)

Capital Gaines by Chip Gaines (finished - 4 stars)

Noah Dowe at MMFA:

As fallout from the Trump administration’s handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case continues to grow, right-wing media have set the sights of their blame on Attorney General Pam Bondi. Bondi’s testimony before Congress’ House Judiciary Committee on February 11 — which one conservative host called a “complete disaster” — follows months of right-wing media accusations that she has “lied to us” or is involved in a “cover-up” of the Epstein scandal. Some figures are now insisting Bondi “is not to be trusted” and “should be fired or resign,” after pinning the blame on her for “the biggest fumble of the Trump administration.”

Bondi’s combative congressional testimony follows months of discontent with the administration’s handling of the Epstein case

Politico noted Bondi’s “aggressive posture in attacking lawmakers during a regular oversight hearing of the DOJ,” including “lashing out at committee members in personal terms,” writing: “For four hours, the nation’s top law enforcement officer largely refused to answer questions from Democrats about the Justice Department’s handling of the Jeffrey Epstein files.” Though Bondi largely clashed with Democrats, she also engaged in a heated back-and-forth with Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY). [Politico, 2/11/26, 2/11/26]

In 2025, many right-leaning media figures and podcasters began to turn on Bondi and the Trump administration over their handling of the Epstein case. Trump ally Laura Loomer declared “we can't trust Pam Blondie anymore” and PBD Podcast panelist Vincent Oshana said she “lied to us.” Streamer Asmongold suggested Bondi was involved in a “cover-up,” and Daily Wire host Matt Walsh argued she “needs to go.” [Media Matters, 7/18/25; Rumble, Loomer Unleashed, 5/6/25; YouTube, PBD Podcast, 9/3/25; YouTube, Asmongold TV, 7/8/25; The Daily Wire, The Matt Walsh Show, 7/14/25]

Zack Beauchamp at Vox:

Increasingly, the Trump administration’s defense of Alex Pretti’s killing has come to center on the fact that he had a gun. “We respect that Second Amendment right, but those rights don’t count when you riot and assault, delay, obstruct and impede law enforcement officers,” Greg Bovino, the Border Patrol’s commander-at-large, told CNN over the weekend. “You cannot bring a firearm, loaded, with multiple magazines, to any sort of protest that you want,” FBI Director Kash Patel said during a Fox News hit.

This is a weak defense on the merits; we have video evidence that federal agents disarmed Pretti before they killed him. But it’s also a flagrant contradiction of decades of conservative dogma, which insisted that American citizens have an unquestionable right to openly carry weapons, including at protests. The Trump administration isn’t just dissembling about Pretti (who was, it should be noted, legally permitted to carry in Minnesota). They are trampling one of the core beliefs of the movement they claim to lead. Gun rights groups have mostly been critical of this position. “Every peaceable Minnesotan has the right to keep and bear arms—including while attending protests, acting as observers, or exercising their First Amendment rights. These rights do not disappear when someone is lawfully armed, and they must be respected and protected at all times,” the Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus said in a statement.

And it’s clear that the politics of it are terrible for the administration: Prominent Republicans in both Minnesota and Washington have criticized the shooting, and anonymous DHS officials are leaking to CNN and Fox News about how poorly Bovino and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem have handled themselves. Even Trump himself is now taking a more conciliatory position on the Minneapolis deployment. So what’s remarkable is the degree to which conservative movement stalwarts have been consistently willing to adopt the Bovino-Patel-Noem line. Erick Erickson, a witness and prominent conservative commentator — who has said the NRA is too squishy on guns — essentially blaming Pretti’s death on his decision to carry. “I think you, when engaging in obstruction with federal agents, can get hurt. When armed, things can go wrong,” Erickson wrote.

Dana Loesch, one of the most prominent gun rights advocates in America, took a similar line. “You cannot obstruct a law enforcement operation,” Loesch wrote on her Substack. “This is illegal. It’s made even worse if you do it while you are armed. Pretti made the choice to disrupt a federal operation…which set off a chain reaction of tragic events.” And far-right podcaster Matt Walsh, who has described gun-toting teen Kyle Rittenhouse as a “hero,” took an even more aggressive stance — castigating those conservatives that dared to criticize the emerging federal line. “An armed leftist went out with a gun to deliberately interfere with legitimate law enforcement operations, and I’m seeing some ‘conservatives’ on this site claim that it might be ICE’s fault that the guy is now dead. Insane. Some of you people will never fucking learn,” Walsh posted on X. These figures are not the most devoted MAGA-conspiracy types, akin to Jack Posobiec and Laura Loomer. They are ideological conservatives who got in the game well before Trump ran for president, and have stated principles over and above personal devotion to the president and his movement.

[...]

The professional conservatives’ hypocrisy

To understand just how hypocritical the right-wing stance is here, it’s important to first reconstruct the conservative take on Pretti’s killing as charitably as possible. Conservatives believe that the state has a right and obligation to enforce its laws, including by deporting people who are in the United States unlawfully. The federal operation in Minneapolis is designed to enforce said laws, but the local authorities’ refusal to assist ICE’s deportation campaign is (for conservatives) tantamount to lawless rejection of federal authority. On this view, people like Alex Pretti are also obstructing a legitimate function of government. Federal agents will, at times, have no option but to subdue them by force. It’s perhaps tragic when that produces a fatal incident, but it’s the protestors’ fault that it’s happening in the first place. “The Left is in a cycle of constant self-radicalization—the resistance to ICE creates the predicate for tragedies that are used to justify ever-more resistance and the demand for the de-facto nullification of federal immigration law in Minneapolis,” writes Rich Lowry, the editor of National Review magazine. But Lowry and his allies get what’s actually happening in Minneapolis backward.

It is not activists behaving lawlessly, but rather ICE agents who are indiscriminately arresting and beating Minnesotans while claiming (with the vice president’s explicit permission) that they can go so far as breaking into people’s homes without a judicial warrant.

Such abuses of civil liberties are not necessary for enforcing immigration law. Many DHS officials themselves are critical of the current strategy on pure effectiveness grounds, seeing it as inefficient relative to a national push targeting known criminal migrants. Even Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, a Republican’s Republican, has admitted this, saying in the wake of the Pretti shooting that the feds needed to adopt a “more structured” deportation policy that can avoid “all the kinds of problems and fighting in communities that they are experiencing right now.”

But on the level of principle, it’s worth seeing how flagrantly the Erickson-Lowry logic contradicts the right’s long-standing Second Amendment advocacy. The orthodox conservative movement position is that the Second Amendment exists as a safeguard against tyranny. Well, masked agents of the state beating and even killing Americans on the streets of a major city looks an awful lot like tyranny to many Americans! After the killing of Renee Good, it makes sense — according to traditional conservative theories — for someone like Alex Pretti to carry a weapon while protesting the state and challenging its agents. To cite Pretti’s decision to carry as a justification for his killing is to directly betray the entire premise of the conservative movement’s pro-gun stance. And no, it doesn’t make a difference for this point that Pretty supposedly “interfered” with ICE by aiding a woman their officers had attacked. He was, in his judgment, standing up to tyranny — without ever drawing his weapon or threatening an agent.